http://www.sethf.com/essays/major/libstupid.php
Debunk!
Schools are labour camps.
As far as I see it, the argument appears to be, "Reasoning is too absolute or not convincing; therefore, libertarians are retarded for using it for political theory."
Latest Projects
"Even when leftists talk about discrimination and sexism, they're damn well talking about the results of the economic system" ~Neodoxy
No point in debunking that which rests entirely on strawmen and unsupported assertions.
Libertarians tend to be stupid because it's attractive to cranky dolts. That being said:
The problem with axiomatic (and/or Absolutist) libertarianism is that its 'axioms' are incompatible with survival and action. All actions have destructive externalities (flashlights come to mind).
"Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned." - Avicenna
Libertarians tend to be stupid because it's attractive to cranky dolts.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Juan:Libertarians tend to be stupid because it's attractive to cranky dolts. Indeed. Now, would you do me a favor ? Care to explain what -ism or a-ism got you, so that I can avoid it ? Cause, being stupid is bad, but your condition is way way worse ... =]
Thank you, Juan, for empirically confirming my theory.
Vichy:Thank you, Juan, for empirically confirming my theory.
Vichy:The problem with axiomatic (and/or Absolutist) libertarianism is that its 'axioms' are incompatible with survival and action. All actions have destructive externalities (flashlights come to mind).
Pardon my ignorance of optical physics, but... how???
"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."
ama gi: Vichy:The problem with axiomatic (and/or Absolutist) libertarianism is that its 'axioms' are incompatible with survival and action. All actions have destructive externalities (flashlights come to mind). Pardon my ignorance of optical physics, but... how???
The difference between a flashlight and a laser is, more or less, energy concentration. They both act in essentially the same way - sending that obnoxious light, heating up the air and walls, doing minor (but detectable) damage to the wood on my front door! Aggression!
Your arbitrary limits are all based on rationalizing proportionality or denying restitution like Lefevre. Because that would work out GREAT! Steal, nothing happens to you!
Vichy:The difference between a flashlight and a laser is, more or less, energy concentration. They both act in essentially the same way - sending that obnoxious light, heating up the air and walls, doing minor (but detectable) damage to the wood on my front door!
Yeah, not to mention obscuring the stars.
tl, dr, dc
I've argued this exact point (or close) here on this forum. I'm still a libertarian. This argument is not a knock-out punch against radical libertarianism, though it may be for a ridiculously purist NAP.
Wow, that's a masterful argument.
Vichy isn't wrong by any means. Any political ideology is full of morons who'd rather tote the word before knowing what it means. However all ideologies have this.
It's not an argument, it's a fact. There are a lot of stupid people everywhere, and libertarianism tends to be attractive to cranky, marginalized stupid people. Not all libertarians are stupid, but it's easy to demonstrate most of them are. Or have you never heard of the Libertarian Party?
And most libertarians know next to nothing that would reasonably justify the vociferousness of their conviction, they're philosophically nearly blind. This should not be a controversial statement, I think.
Not all libertarians are stupid, but it's easy to demonstrate most of them are.
I don't think it is. I'd say the average libertarian is pretty intelligent.
Anyway, you're just a troll, and not even a good one. Buh-bye.
This should not be a controversial statement, I think.
Oh but it is! Unless you concede the same applies to other ideologies. Good luck proving that there is a disproportional number of unphilosophical, stupid individuals in libertarianism as compared to any other ideology. As for the LP, it is hardly the seat of radical libertarianism (at best not-so-small-governmentism? a home for disgruntled liberals/conservatives?) so it's a poor example. In fact I'll even go so far as to say that after reading libertarian thinkers, be they philosophers or economists, mainstream ones bore me.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Vichy:Libertarians tend to be stupid because it's attractive to cranky dolts.
There's a difference between crankishness and stupidity.
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
Oh but it is! Unless you concede the same applies to other ideologies.
I would - most people of any ideological stripe are unreflective, uncritical and extremely narrow in their outlook.
Good luck proving that there is a disproportional number of unphilosophical, stupid individuals in libertarianism as compared to any other ideology.
I never said that. Though Libertarianism does tend to attract more cranky stupid people.
As for the LP, it is hardly the seat of radical libertarianism
No, but it is a hugely influential segment of libertarianism. And even taking the more radical elements - Mises, Anti-state.com, Strike the Root - the really intelligent people is largely confined to the academics and staff. The unwashed masses of Rothbardians are tards.
In fact I'll even go so far as to say that after reading libertarian thinkers, be they philosophers or economists, mainstream ones bore me.
Which is to say - the vast majority of the libertarian movement.
Yes, there is. Libertarian stupid people just happen to be particularly cranky, because libertarianism has a tough time not sliding into pure crankyness.
What is it to be "cranky" anyway? Sounds nebulous.
Jon Irenicus: What is it to be "cranky" anyway? Sounds nebulous.
From Wikipedia
"Crank" is a pejorative term for a person who either holds some belief which the vast majority of his contemporaries would consider false, or is simply just bad-tempered.[1] The term implies that a "cranky" belief is so wildly at variance with some commonly accepted truth as to be ludicrous, and arguing with the crank is useless, because he will invariably dismiss all evidence or arguments which contradict his unconventional belief.
It's a behavioural-ideological assessment.
Specific examples? I know what the term means, I'm just confused how it applies here. Do you mean 9/11 truthers, people who think there's a conspiracy running the world financial sector &c.? Yeah, unfortunately libertarianism does attract a disproportionate amount of that kind of people (yet so do various leftist ideologies.) Yet a lot of what the government and "mainstream" believe in is pure nonsense (including some of the more politicised branches of science, "natural" or social), and so I would not call someone a crank for disagreeing with it. Rather it's merely the institutionalisation of stupidity. So I am going to guess you mean very specific instances of crankishness.
You might be correct. Most "Libertarians" are stupid and cranky. But that is only due to your definition of a Libertarian. Since you refer to members of the LP as Libertarians, then you are probably right. Many people who call themselves Libertarians are very stupid and cranky.
Now, if you claimed that market anarchists were stupid and cranky, you would be wrong. (obviously)
Vichy: Libertarians tend to be stupid because it's attractive to cranky dolts. That being said: The problem with axiomatic (and/or Absolutist) libertarianism is that its 'axioms' are incompatible with survival and action. All actions have destructive externalities (flashlights come to mind).
I think I'm a rather cheerful person.
And I do have an IQ of 138, which isn't that bad, is it?
"Anticapitalist theories share in common an inability to take human nature as it is. Rather than analyzing man as a complex creature, anticapitalist theories tend to focus on what the theorist wishes man to be." - Isaac Morehouse
. And as far as excluding the LP (and objectivists, for example) - I say, BS. These people are clearly philosophically identified and self-identified as libertarians (in the American sense). It's a tradition, not a single definite philosophy. You may as well exclude Block because you disagree with 5 interpretations he takes on NAP or something. "No true scottsman," reasoning is silly. But even if you exclude the CATO-ites and objectivists - well, I presume you've seen the majority of people on libertarian forums and message boards? Anti-State.com is a hive of crankishness.
Well, since I don't want to offend the living, I'll list a few of the dead cranks:
Leonard Read, Robert LeFevre, Murray Rothbard, Ayn Rand, Frank Meyer, John Locke, the Levelers, Thomas Paine, Henry David Thoreau
This is not to say none of them were intelligent (many weren't) or didn't believe some things that were true (many did). It's to say that they had cranky views, in both senses.
And I say it is BS to include anyone who simply labels themselves as a libertarian but instead adheres merely to "small government", especially when libertarianism is the ideology conservatives or even liberals often take on when disgruntled by their parties of preference. Regarding Objectivists, they're as libertarian as any other minarchist (though their foreign policy views leave me dubious of that); it's they themselves who flatly deny the applicability of the label to their ideology, and to a degree I do not blame them and agree, especially when it comes from the Peikovian branch. At least they're aware of the differences between the ideologies. A minority of them are even libertarians, mostly post-/neo-Objectivists (i.e. those who aren't more concerned about "terrorists" than the encroachments of the State.)
Anyway I was asking for specific examples of crankishness. Because, as I said, if it means shirking the garbage many in the mainstream believe in I am disinclined to take it as a negative... except in marketing the ideology.
Anyway I was asking for specific examples of crankishness.
Robert LeFevre making himself look like an ass:
Part 1, Part 2
Vichy:And as far as excluding the LP (and objectivists, for example) - I say, BS. These people are clearly philosophically identified and self-identified as libertarians (in the American sense).
They have very little in common with market anarchists. You are grouping Bob Barr and Murray Rothbard in the same category.
Vichy: Well, since I don't want to offend the living, I'll list a few of the dead cranks: Leonard Read, Robert LeFevre, Murray Rothbard, Ayn Rand, Frank Meyer, John Locke, the Levelers, Thomas Paine, Henry David Thoreau
Aristotle and Einstein were cranks....Your crank label is meaningless.
Vichy: The difference between a flashlight and a laser is, more or less, energy concentration. They both act in essentially the same way - sending that obnoxious light, heating up the air and walls, doing minor (but detectable) damage to the wood on my front door! Aggression! Your arbitrary limits are all based on rationalizing proportionality or denying restitution like Lefevre. Because that would work out GREAT! Steal, nothing happens to you!
Don't talk about things that you don't know about. The biggest difference between a flashlight and a laser is that a laser emits COHERENT LIGHT. All of the waves are aligned. This is why when you do experiments with single- and double-slit diffraction, they only work with lasers and not a flashlight.
So before you go off calling people stupid and idealogs, make sure that you don't say anything that you're not completely sure you know.
Yes, I am a huge Dodgers fan.
Anti-state since I learned about the Cuban Revolution and why my dad had to flee the country.
Beer, Guns and Baseball My blog
This thread is starting to get very stupid.
xAristotle and Einstein were cranks....Your crank label is meaningless
Not if you understand it properly - it's not just that their views are outside the mainstream, it's that they defend them unreasonably and - specifically on their obscure, 'crankish' views - they are oblivious to criticism. It doesn't even mean they're wrong, though I think they sometimes are.
This is what I have gathered from my (and other people's) dealing with run-of-the-mill libertarians, including 'anarchists'. Of course I do not deny that there are cranks who aren't libertarians - Paul Krugman is a crank, and an idiot. But that doesn't somehow negate libertarian crankishness.
The biggest difference between a flashlight and a laser is that a laser emits COHERENT LIGHT. All of the waves are aligned. This is why when you do experiments with single- and double-slit diffraction, they only work with lasers and not a flashlight.
I didn't think that was relevant to the example. The most relevant difference IS energy concentration - which coherence is great at generating. That's why a heat-lamp burns your skin and a high-powered laser will boil you so fast you explode. The point is that proportionality and 'limitations' on what is aggression are conventional manners that can not be answered in any a priori fashion.
I can't help but wonder what is really wrong with Vichy. She's seems to be kinda pissed off by libertarians?
When all else fails, resort to psychologizing!I'm not 'pissed off' by Libertarians, I think libertarianism, liberalism and humanism are literally false doctrines. I think many libertarians are cranks, and not infrequently stupid cranks.
ama gi: This thread is starting to get very stupid.
It's easy to manipulate people once you know what buttons to push.
Firstly, do you accept the axiom that "humans act"?
tonyfernandez: Vichy: The difference between a flashlight and a laser is, more or less, energy concentration. They both act in essentially the same way - sending that obnoxious light, heating up the air and walls, doing minor (but detectable) damage to the wood on my front door! Aggression! Your arbitrary limits are all based on rationalizing proportionality or denying restitution like Lefevre. Because that would work out GREAT! Steal, nothing happens to you! Don't talk about things that you don't know about. The biggest difference between a flashlight and a laser is that a laser emits COHERENT LIGHT. All of the waves are aligned. This is why when you do experiments with single- and double-slit diffraction, they only work with lasers and not a flashlight. So before you go off calling people stupid and idealogs, make sure that you don't say anything that you're not completely sure you know.
Vichy, is her post directed at me, stated that the primary difference between a flashlight and a laser is "energy concentration". This is correct; whereas an ordinary light bulb sends light waves in all directions, a laser, or coherent light, is highly concentrated. Perhaps Ms. Fournier actually does know what she is talking about. Perhaps you should just stop picking on little girls.
Regards,
Ama gi
Vichy:I think many libertarians are cranks, and not infrequently stupid cranks.
I think here, we don't have cranks, as much as we have a few very cranky people.
But then I suppose crankery is all relative.
Who in your opinion is *not* a crank?
ama gi: Dear Mr. Fernandez: Vichy, is her post directed at me, stated that the primary difference between a flashlight and a laser is "energy concentration". This is correct; whereas an ordinary light bulb sends light waves in all directions, a laser, or coherent light, is highly concentrated. Perhaps Ms. Fournier actually does know what she is talking about. Perhaps you should just stop picking on little girls. Regards, Ama gi
Dear Mr. Fernandez:
I could concentrate ordinary light the same way just by directing it with some mirrors. However, from a physical perspective, the coherence is the most important aspect of a laser.
Vichy:When all else fails, resort to psychologizing!
tonyfernandez:I could concentrate ordinary light the same way just by directing it with some mirrors.